DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/16/2022 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the IDS, submitted on 05/16/2022, have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
35 U.S.C. 112 reads as follows:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as being indefinite for failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4, of claim 1 recite “acquiring point data where a point in a geographical space and a value at the point are associated with each other and region data in which a region in the geographical space and a value in the region are associated with each other as training data.” Each of claims 5 and 6 recites similar subject matter. It is unclear, as recited in the claim(s), whether the “point data,” “region data,” or both are “associated with each other as training data.” Thus, at the time the application was filed, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-4, claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), second paragraph, due to their dependency from a rejected base claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A spatial data downscaling method executed by a computer including a memory and a processor, the method comprising: acquiring point data where a point in a geographical space and a value at the point are associated with each other and region data in which a region in the geographical space and a value in the region are associated with each other as training data; estimating, with the training data acquired in the acquiring, parameters of a multivariate Gaussian process model represented by a linear mixture of a plurality of latent Gaussian processes; and calculating resolution enhance data in which a region having a finer granularity than the region and a value in the region having the finer granularity are associated with each other from the region data designated by a user with the multivariate Gaussian process model in which the parameters estimated in the estimating have been set. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 5 and 6.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 5 is an apparatus claim, and claim 6 is a computer program product claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “estimating, with the training data acquired in the acquiring, parameters of a multivariate Gaussian process model represented by a linear mixture of a plurality of latent Gaussian processes…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 3-4; ¶¶27-61, including equations 1-25, of the instant specification), and “calculating resolution enhance data in which a region having a finer granularity than the region and a value in the region having the finer granularity are associated with each other from the region data designated by a user with the multivariate Gaussian process model in which the parameters estimated in the estimating have been set” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 3-4; ¶¶28-33, ¶¶71-100, including equations 22-31, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring specific mathematical calculations (The Gaussian process model described in ¶¶27-34 and ¶¶93-99, of the instant specification.) to perform the spatial data downscaling method, and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “creating an orthogonal partial least square (OPLS),” “estimating” and “calculating” are performed using one or more training algorithms (model(s)).
In the alternative, each of the recited judicial exceptions may also be considered a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of the training data, a human user would be capable of estimating parameters of a multivariate Gaussian process model represented by a linear mixture of a plurality of latent Gaussian processes, and then calculating resolution enhance data in which a region having a finer granularity than the region and a value in the region having the finer granularity are associated with each other from the region data designated by a user with the multivariate Gaussian process model in which the parameters estimated in the estimating have been set, using, for example, equations 1-31 disclosed in ¶¶27-100 of the instant specification, by pen and paper. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 5 and 6 recite similar abstract ideas.
In claim 1, the steps of: “estimating” and “calculating” each fall within the mathematical and/or mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claims 5 and 6 recites similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “estimating” and “calculating” are recited as being performed by a computer (“the spatial data downscaling apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment is implemented by a general computer or a computer system, and includes an input device 201, a display device 202, an external I/F 203, a communication I/F 204, a processor 205…” FIGS. 1-2; ¶85, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“general computer or a computer system”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (data) of “point data,” “region data,” and “training data” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶22-24, of the instant specification). Similarly, Claim 5, as well as claim 6, additionally recites the additional elements (equipment) of “a memory,” and “a processor” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶85, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 5 and 6 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 6, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the resolution enhance data is calculated.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 5, 6). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 6, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 6, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 8,825,456 B2, to Vasudevan et al., discloses computerized data analysis and synthesis, where a Gaussian process model is generated using first and second datasets to compute optimized kernel and noise hyperparameters. The Gaussian process model is applied using stored first and second datasets and hyperparameters to perform Gaussian process regression to compute estimates of unknown values of the quantity of interest. The resulting computed estimates of the quantity of interest result from a non-parametric Gaussian process fusion of the first and second measurement datasets.
“Refining Coarse-grained Spatial Data Using Auxiliary Spatial Data Sets with Various Granularities”, In AAAI, pages 5091-5100, to Tanaka et al., discloses a probabilistic model for refining coarse-grained spatial data by utilizing auxiliary spatial data sets. The proposed model can effectively make use of auxiliary data sets with various granularities by hierarchically incorporating Gaussian processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857